[Keyframe]

[Tom Brooks] “or are you perhaps also changing file type or file compression in your process? For example, a tif with the Zip compression option will be smaller than a psd file of same size. “

I wondered the same thing.

The first time I tried to ‘test’ the dpi change, I was surprised when I got a dramatic size difference. Then I discovered the size difference I got was not due to the change in ppi (dpi), but was due to a difference in the way the TIFFs were created. I had created the original with the Grab screen capture program. I created the second TIFF with Photoshop. The TIFFs were not ‘created equally.’ If I took that second (Photoshop) TIFF and, using Photoshop, saved a third TIFF from it, I could now control file type, [lack of] compression, etc. more closely. The 2nd and 3rd files were now of similar size, though having different ppi.

Steve Grimes

[Keyframe]

Jeremy,

When I mentioned 2004, I was talking about part of a thread you referenced.

[from May 5, 2004]
“FWIW, this question was raised at NAB at the FCPUG meeting. At the meeting, many of the senior members of the FCP engineering team were there. They said they had done lots of tests on the impact of Journaling and found that the difference is negligible and recommended keeping Journaling on all partitions.

Jeff Bernstein
Digital Desktop Consulting”

Jeremy, I was not trying to say that your comments were out of date; on the contrary, I welcomed them. I thought it fair to mentioned “old” to acknowledge the age of the post by J. Bernstein.

I’m glad to see someone (you) provide some balance to this “no journaling for media volumes–EVER” concept. I have wondered about enabling journaling on media volumes. Since my experience with a (corrupted?) media volume (G-Tech G-RAID) where about 400GB of data was lost, I have not wanted to dismiss the idea of using journaling with media volumes. [I know, backup, RAID-5, etc. might be more secure methods, but still…] Though journaling might not have prevented that particular loss, I wonder if it might have helped maintain the integrity of the file system. Hasn’t NTFS had some sort of journaling since the days of Windows NT?

I referenced the Apple article to provide instructions for disabling journaling–not so much to prove/disprove the need for journaling on media volumes.

I apologize if I was/am confusing or misleading.

Steve Grimes

[Keyframe]

You may wish to review the following article:

https://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107249

In particular, look at the end of the article for instructions about disabling journaling.

However, I do believe Jeremy provides enough support for an alternative view to what Walter seems to state as undisputed fact. Of course, maybe Walter and others have done sufficient testing to support their contention that “Media arrays should NEVER be journaled.” It is possible that they have generated test results to counter the tests and recommendations made by the FCP engineers as mentioned in the (old) 2004 post.

Steve Grimes

[Keyframe]

I forgot to mention again that I did my simple test using Photoshop CS3 Extended. I don’t know if the version of Photoshop matters.

Steve Grimes

[Keyframe]

Walter,

I still don’t get how your files are decreasing in size, if only ppi is changed. Maybe I don’t understand how Photoshop is handling text rasterization or something.

To humor me, take an image (e.g., 2500 pixels x 2500 pixels, 600 dpi) that you created from a scan process. Name that file Sample_1.tif, for example. Now open the ‘scan’ file (Sample_1.tif) into Photoshop. Save that image to a new Photoshop file, Sample_2.psd, paying close attention to the save settings (file type, layers, etc.). Close Sample_2.psd. Use Finder to determine the file size (bytes) of Sample_2.psd. Open Sample_2.psd into Photoshop. Now, Save As to a new file, Sample_3.psd, using the same save settings that were used to save Sample_2.psd. I assume Finder will show Sample_2.psd and Sample_3.psd to be similar sizes (bytes). Now, for Sample_3.psd, use Image > Image Size to change document size–resolution to 72 ppi, making sure that ‘Resample Image’ is first unchecked. Pixel dimensions should remain unchanged. Look at Image > Image Size again to verify that ppi did change. Save Sample_3.psd on top of itself. Check Finder to see if the file size (bytes) of Sample_3.psd decreased dramatically or remained roughly the same.

I didn’t try this procedure with a file such as yours–my sample file was a small file with some text layers and maybe some shape layers. I didn’t note a dramatic change is file size when I only changed the ppi setting.

Walter, I wonder if you read the FCP6 User Manual section I suggested.
(At the risk of violating copyright: “The dimensions of a video image are dependent only on the number of horizontal and vertical pixels used in the image. Pixel dimensions alone
determine the resolution of a video image. You can easily test this yourself by
creating two 720 x 480 images in a still graphics program, setting one image to a
resolution of 300 dots per inch (dpi) and the other to 72 dpi. Import both images into
Final Cut Pro and compare the two. They are absolutely identical. This is because
video editing software does not use the dpi setting of a graphic image.”
[FCP 6 User Manual, p. III-370]

Steve Grimes

[Keyframe]

CharlieX,

I agree.

I’ll add that file sizes (in bytes) don’t seem to increase to any sizable degree as [only] ppi (dpi) increases in Photoshop–as long as the image is not resampled. (i.e., if the number of vertical pixels, the number of horizontal pixels, the number of bits per channel, and the number of channels all remain constant, then I say the file size (bytes) remains (approximately) constant.

Steve Grimes

[Keyframe]

[gary adcock] “correct,

I was referring to a smaller denominator.”

Thank you for the clarification.

Steve Grimes

[Keyframe]

[gary adcock] “Correct — but your math is wrong, the longer the shutter is open the longer the blur. So smaller fractional numbers are in order for more motion blur. 1/4 is open longer than 1/60th.”

I understand Gary to state that:

Longer the shutter is open -> Longer the blur;

1/4 [sec.] [shutter speed] is open longer than 1/60 [sec.] [shutter speed];

[Accordingly, 1/4 sec. shutter speed results in longer blur than 1/60 sec. shutter speed.]

However Gary also states:

“So smaller fractional numbers are in order for more motion blur.”

Gary,
I thought that 1/4 (0.25) is a larger, not smaller, number than 1/60 (0.016666…). Did you mean “smaller denominators within fractional numbers [assuming equal numerators]?” Or am I missing something?

Steve Grimes

[Keyframe]

[Danrnw] ” just did a test. I put a clip in the viewer and exported, Quicktime Conversion to
h.264. Played back in Quicktime player, no timecode.”

Import the new H.264 file into FCP. Select the clip in the Browser and select Timecode… from the Modify menu. If there are no timecode tracks, there will be nothing next to Source TC, Aux TC 1, and Aux TC 2. If you want a source TC track where there is none, check the box next to Source TC. Then, enter the desired timecode setting (hh:mm:ss:ff). WARNING: if there is a source TC track (e.g., from capturing the video clip), modifying this setting will alter the original (captured) TC. The Aux 1 and Aux 2 timecode tracks allow someone to create additional TC tracks (e.g., to help sync with whatever). Note that you select at the top of the Modify Timecode window which frame you wish to set to the entered TC (either Current or First).

[Keyframe]

[jon smitherton] “Wouldn’t it be good if you could assign TC to clips?

imagine outsourced shots/graphics coming back with a timecode reference to be resynced in FCP to…”

See my reply to your duplicate post in the later thread “Quicktime 7.1.6 doesn’t see…”

Steve Grimes